CUISON vs.

COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

On February 7, 1989 respondent Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan rendered a
Joint decision finding the accused Eduardo Cuison guilty of the crime of double homicide beyond reasonable doubt
in the shooting of Sapigao and Rulo Castro.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the said decision was affirmed with the modification that the civil
indemnity was increased from P30, 000 to P50, 000. The accused elevated the decision on a petition for review but
the Supreme Court denied the petition.

The case was remanded to the RTC Pangasinan for promulgation of the decision. However, respondent
Judge promulgated the decision of the Court of Appeals only with respect to the modified civil liability of the
accused but did not commit the accused to jail to commence service of his sentence.

Ass. City Prosecutor Abraham L. Ramos II reported the matter to the Solicitor General and requested that a
motion for clarification be filed with this Court to clarify the decision dated July 30, 1991. On July 7, 1995 the
Solicitor General filed a Motion to Clarify Decision, wherein the resolution modified the appealed decision of the
court a quo in one respect only- the increased of the indemnity to be paid by the appellant to the heirs of the victims.

After a careful review the court found no doubt as to the participation of the accused-appellant in the
shooting of Sapigao and Castro and that conspiracy was present in the instant case. Acting on the motion to clarify
decision, the Court affirmed the decision of the court a quo with regard to the penalty of imprisonment in the said
Trial Court’s decision.

The accused, however, fled a Motion to Set Aside Promulgation on the grounds that it will violate the
accused’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial courts’s promulgation of the CA decision would violate the constitutional right
against double jeopardy?

HELD:

The constitutional proscription of double jeopardy is not violated by a Court of Appeals order requiring the
trial court to promulgate a decision sentencing the accused to imprisonment even if, earlier, the same decision has
been promulgated in regard only to the payment of the modified civil indemnity arising from the same criminal act.
Otherwise stated, the promulgation of only one part of the decision such as civil indemnity is not a bar to the
subsequent promulgation of the other part, the imposition of the criminal accountability.

To substantiate the claim of double jeopardy, it must be proven that:

1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second

2. First jeopardy validly terminated
3. Second jeopardy must be for the same offense

As a rule, a criminal prosecution includes a civil action for the recovery of indemnity. Hence, a decision in
such case disposes both the criminal as well as the civil liabilities of an accused. Here, the trial court
promulgated only the civil aspect of the case, but not the criminal. The promulgation of the CA decision
was not only incomplete but void. It was emphasized that grave abuse of discretion rendered the
aforementioned act of the trial court void. Since the criminal case has not yet been terminated, the first
jeopardy has not yet attached. Hence, double jeopardy cannot prosper as a defense.